I don't know how much independence was there if one knew of the other's study. Surely, the first's study must have influenced the second's.

The independence lies in the methodology used to obtain and analyze the data; they are based on completely different physical processes. If they were "cheating the data" their peers would point it out, and wouldn't be able to duplicate their results.

Given that universal expansion is accelerating, it's difficult to determine how much of the universal expansion is due to initial conditions (ballistics of the "big bang") and how much is due to a continual expansion of empty space itself. It could have been a "big whoosh" instead, perhaps. To extrapolate everything back to a "small" point may be possible, but what science can say about the nature and history of things around that point is more severely limited than some scientists seem willing to admit. It is not possible to create (or find) and make measurement on objects that even remotely approach such conditions, by many, many degrees of magnitude.

You seem to think the entire scientific community should concentrate on a single topic at a time. This is highly unreasonable, don't you agree?

What makes you think that? The topic of the post is the conclusions the scientists are drawing with regards to the age of the universe. I certainly hope if taxpayer money is being used to fund these projects they're spending the bulk of their time on events closer to home, like our solar system. We need to be awake to whatever dangers are out there. And exploring Mars for possible colonization in the future should be high on the priority list as well.

And the researchers devoted to things "closer to home" are doing just that, while researchers devoted to understanding the universe, its age and its makeup are doing what they do best. The two need not be mutually exclusive.

Yes, but the inflationary period ended early, before the formation of galaxies began. I was asked if we could see a galaxy 100 billion light years away from us. It's light wouldn't have had time to get here.

Add to that, the universe appears to be expanding even after the inflation phase. Someone above pointed out that the distant objects are receeding at faster than light speed and so can't be seen. This would put the observable limit of the universe at a particular distance from the observer

Someone above pointed out that the distant objects are receeding at faster than light speed and so can't be seen. This would put the observable limit of the universe at a particular distance from the observer

I recall that post, but I don't know ... it needs some clarification. I've read that the most distant objects are receding from us at about 70% of lightspeed, judging by their redshifts. (Perhaps those estimates are higher now, it's been a while since I read that.) But let's go with 70%, which means that if you look in the opposite direction and see another such object, those two objects are separating from one another at 140% of lightspeed. So the universe is expanding faster than c, but nothing seems to be receding from us at that speed. At least that's my understanding. I'm sure that if I've got it wrong -- as I often do -- a tactful correction will appear in due course.

If the objects were moving then none would appear to be moving away at over lightspeed. But if space itself is expanding, the rules of relativity don't apply, even though the rule of redshift, for some reason, does. I probably have this pretty well confused. That's why Fred Hoyle is missed. He could explain things clearly, even if not accurately.

Why do you find infinite spaces terrifying? Maybe glorious or wonderful or beautiful, but not terrifying.

Actually they are both. But my point was that a scientist of old (Pascal) trembled before the God who made the "infinite spaces" and found them terrible apart from God. For Pascal there was no contemplation of the creation apart from contemplation of the One who created.

THIS is what seems missing from so much science today: not an "it", but a "He".

For Pascal there was no contemplation of the creation apart from contemplation of the One who created. THIS is what seems missing from so much science today: not an "it", but a "He".

The Creator isn't a scientific topic, strictly speaking, as He can't be observed or tested. Pascal would have been combining science and theology, which is okay at a personal level, but it's not the way science is done.

This from the same group of minds which cannot predict a major earthquake 5 minutes before it happens, even though most animals can.

Last time I checked, Astrophysicists and Cosmologists weren't in the business of studying earthquakes, let alone predicting them.

I could just as well ask you how many animals are able to build telescopes, rockets, and satellites.

Lastly, no one can accurately predict the weather more than a week in advance. Does that imply that scientists CAN'T measure the age of the Universe? Not for a minute. It merely is a reflection of the reality that some phenomona are dynamical and inherently sensitive to initial conditions; hence they are unpredictable beyond the short term, which has nothing to do with the article posted here.

So the universe is expanding faster than c, but nothing seems to be receding from us at that speed.

As it is to be expected. The distance at which the recessional velocity (caused by the expansion of space-time) is equal to "c" defines the boundary of an imaginary sphere around the point of observation, within which it is possible to observe objects. Objects beyond the boundary (if they exist?) would not be observeable to someone at the center of the sphere defined above, though they would still be part of the Universe, and would be observable from points located less than the previously defined boundary distance away from such objects.

I think "Physicist" referred to this distance as the "light horizon." It defines in a very practical way the limits of the observeable Universe, from a particular point of observation.

Objects beyond the boundary (if they exist?) would not be observeable to someone at the center of the sphere defined above, though they would still be part of the Universe, and would be observable from points located less than the previously defined boundary distance away from such objects.

I'm not getting that at all. The age of the universe is greater than the age of the luminous objects within it. So the oldest and most distant of luminous objects have had, as it were, all the time in the world to send their light to us. (The only exception I can think of would be a recently formed objects at a great distance.)

The age of the universe is greater than the age of the luminous objects within it. So the oldest and most distant of luminous objects have had, as it were, all the time in the world to send their light to us.

The time available for the photons to get here can't exceed the age of the Universe, so if an object is Age of the Universe + 10 lightyears away, assuming we have a big enough telescope, we wouldn't even be able to detect it for another ten years.

But if the distance is so far away that the recessional velocity due to the expansion of space is greater than "c", we can't see it at all. It is outside our "light horizon" or observeable Universe. And it can't see us, for exactly the same reason.

......no one can accurately predict the weather more than a week in advance. Does that imply that scientists CAN'T measure the age of the Universe? Not for a minute. It merely is a reflection of the reality that some phenomona are dynamical and inherently sensitive to initial conditions; hence they are unpredictable beyond the short term.....

Your argument hurts your case. With weather forecasts, we can evaluate predictions against actual results, and thus gain an understanding of the limitations of meteorological sciences. The ability to observe the actual establishes the limitations of predictive technology, thus giving an objective measure of reliability.

If a particular scientific endeavor lacks predictive reliability, then it would seem an inefficient allocation of scarce educational resources and a waste of brain power. We should defund such pursuits at universities and send the $ to economically productive areas such as mechanical or electrical engineering. In fact, I'd just as soon fund wymyn's studies as quantum physics.

no one can accurately predict the weather more than a week in advance. Does that imply that scientists CAN'T measure the age of the Universe? Not for a minute.

A better analogy is that no one can accurately measure what the weather was a week ago, or tell when the last hailstorm was, solely by looking at today's weather. Sure there are indicators which give a pretty good idea, but not to the accuracy claimed about the age & origin of the universe.

And yes I know that cosmologists don't really study earthquakes - but they DO use practically the same scientific methods and few ounces of grey matter.

The ability to observe the actual establishes the limitations of predictive technology, thus giving an objective measure of reliability.

Which is exactly what the Astronomers have done here:

First, several groups of astronomers developed methodologies based on the Hubble expansion to estimate the age of the Universe. There value was about 14 billion years, plus or minus a billion or so.

This is then used as the basis of a prediction: the prediction is that a completely different methodology (one that does NOT rely on measuring the expansion of the Universe, or things related thereto) for measuring the age of the Universe should give the same result.

The experiment conducted by the Canadian scientists (when they weren't busy at "curling practice" at the local ice arena) was to see if this prediction is correct.

The result: it IS correct!

[snip] In fact, I'd just as soon fund wymyn's studies as quantum physics.

.... but not to the accuracy claimed about the age & origin of the universe.

If you have a beef with the claimed accuracy of the measurements regarding the age of the Universe, by all means post the evidence. This thread is over 150 post long, and not a single naysayer has provided a scintilla of evidence that the methods used by the scientists were defective.

Exactly. Neither can they predict weather with any real accuracy, nor control it. They can't cure cancer, AIDS, or even the common cold. There are so many basic things science has not yet figured out, but they pretend to have some clue about the age of the universe. I certainly hope they are willing to accept skepticism of their claims.

I certainly hope they are willing to accept skepticism of their claims.

The skepticism would be much more useful if the skeptics could specify which of the observations of astronomy and cosmology they dispute, and state the specific reasons for the dispute. If you accept the observed data but doubt the conclusions, it would be very interesting if you would provide us with an alternative model which better accommodates the data. That's how the game is played.

Neither can they predict weather with any real accuracy, nor control it. They can't cure cancer, AIDS, or even the common cold. There are so many basic things science has not yet figured out, but they pretend to have some clue about the age of the universe.

First of all, weather prediction, cancer, AIDS and the common cold are all very hard problems compared to measuring the age of the universe. The latter is simply a matter of undergraduate math and a sufficiently powerful telescope. Second of all, the scientists who work on one problem are not the same people who work on any other. What you've said is rather like upbraiding a dentist for the slow pace of research into treating pancreatic cancer.

I certainly hope they are willing to accept skepticism of their claims.

Until {was it} Copernicus came along, scientists agreed the sun revolved around the earth.

As a practical matter, there really weren't any scientists around before Copernicus. Stargazers, yes; mathematicians, yes; but not scientists -- as we use the term. Not too many were around after Galileo either, certainly not in the lands ruled by the Inquisition, as they all fled to the north. Science is a relatively new human endevour.

This thread is over 150 post long, and not a single naysayer has provided a scintilla of evidence that the methods used by the scientists were defective.

That's probably because they aren't. I personally don't doubt the intelligence of these people and what they're doing. My only argument that hasn't been refuted either is that they're only measuring what they can see. If there are galaxies or other objects in space farther out than what we can now detect, objects whose light is too faint, or hasn't reached us yet, that would throw their whole discoveries out of whack, because that would mean the universe is older than what they're saying. That's why I'm skeptical of stories like this.

I say wait 20 or 30 more years when technology advances with even better telescopes. You'll be hearing the universe is at least a 100 billion years older or more.

In my view, both departments--wymyn's studies and quantum physics--produce drivel of similar uselessness. Both contribute equally (i.e., nil) to the betterment of man.

Well, one out of two isn't bad. I agree that "wymyn's studies" and other PC claptrap is essentially useless garbage.

But QM on the other hand is extremely useful. Do you think we would have personal computers, the internet, and a myriad of other electronic devices and technologies if we did NOT study and understand QM?

If there are galaxies or other objects in space farther out than what we can now detect, objects whose light is too faint, or hasn't reached us yet, that would throw their whole discoveries out of whack, because that would mean the universe is older than what they're saying.

How so? IF there were objects further away that we can't see, how does that make the Universe older that what has been measured?

I say wait 20 or 30 more years when technology advances with even better telescopes. You'll be hearing the universe is at least a 100 billion years older or more.

I dare say that would be extraordinarily unlikely, as I'm quite sure there are observational data that place an UPPER bound on the possible age of the Universe, and that bound is much lower than 100 billion years. I wish I could remember the exact observational data that tell us this, but at the moment I can't recall what it is. Perhaps "Physicist" knows.....

Disclaimer:
Opinions posted on Free Republic are those of the individual
posters and do not necessarily represent the opinion of Free Republic or its
management. All materials posted herein are protected by copyright law and the
exemption for fair use of copyrighted works.